eSJayDee

Actually, I don't think he did. IIRC, he took over for Arians w/ only a few games left, consequently he didn't get enough tries to make an accurate assessment. We let him go at the end of the year. Also, again IIRC, he didn't have a very strong leg.

I can think of a couple of relevant issues, both time related. As someone said (I think Stevestojan but the post reviews don't go back that far) DB & Co. have only had 2 real weeks in THIS system. To pull the plug at this juncture would be hasty. Further, SM has only been in town a few weeks. This put him considerably further behind DB in understanding the offense. If we continue to flounder on offense, in my opinion, by the time it would be appropriate to making a change, we'd hopefully have JPL available.

One thing I'd like to add w/ respect to mobile QBs & why they get sacked more frequently. In some instances, instead of throwing a ball away (or trying to force it somewhere), they opt instead to scramble. In some instances, the successful scramble results in them taking off & running for + yardage. In other cases, they are able to buy time so as to throw a better pass, However, a certain amount of time they will be unsuccessful in eluding the rush which will result in a sack whereas someone like a Marino or Manning would have throw the ball already. Someone above made the very valid point that some of those sacks are results of them scrambling OB behind the LOS (a la RJ); something that a less mobile QB would not be able to do. (Bear in mind, that if someone big & fast is chasing you, it's easier & more importantly SAFER, to continue to run toward OB than to slow down to throw a pass.) But basically my point is that for every scramble opportunity a QB takes relative to immediately throwing the ball, X % will result in a run, but Y will result in an otherwise not occurring sack. (note that X + Y <> 1.0) Also, BTW, I recall that Randall Cunningham was one of the most sacked QBs. He was pretty mobile.

Wow, hard, I mean difficult to believe. Heck, I was a punter & I wore one. In fact, I think it might have been bigger than my shoulder pads It felt awkward, but I don't think it was hampering. Would think it would be the same for running - uncomfortable but not detrimental to speed. I rather have minor discomfort for a whole game than a few minutes of severe , ah, discomfort. Tell you what - I'm definitely gonna think differently about all the 'nasty stuff' that goes on scrumming for a loose fumble.

Be forewarned: I had a rule book until the dog ate most of it (I now have about 1/3 of the rules.) 1st, the book is written in a very convoluted fashion. For instance, unless you were VERY familiar w/ the book, I bet you'd spend 30 minutes trying to figure if we were entitled to a safety or not. The other problem, at least when I got one a feww years ago, is that by the time you get the book, the rules have changed. It's probably the case that the most current rules available to the general public were those implemented for the 2002 season. They change the rules slightly every year & I'm pretty certain that you're not gonna get the 2004 rules. That being said, it is still worthwhile to satiate your curiousity. For instance, what prompted my purchasing this book was there was this rather controversial call pertaining to whether or not a pass was forward or not

Rich Gannon seems to be doing quite well. He's like what, 5 yrs DBs senior. Let's not even bring up old man midget.

When I 1st read the post title, I thought you were being facetious, but under the assumption that you seriously think that (if not then fools on me) let me defend. He's had what, like 10 punts? That means that every 10 yds of a punt changes his avg 1 yd. So if he had 1 bad punt (which he had at least 1 vs Raiders), that costs his avg 2 yds. If he's called upon to pooch punt more than usual, that can easily cost another yd. Considering he's only had like 10 punts, the #s just aren't statistically relevant. Just 20 or 30 yds in total distance could easily move him up or down 10 places in the rankings. See where he ranks after a few more games. For that matter, didn't he avg like 44 . something the 1st game? So he had 1 subpar game. He's one of our best players. For that matter, he is undisputably our best passer!

Not as well. Seriously, w/ the exception of assigning a 'spy' to him, just the same as Drew. Blitz and try to confuse him & the blockers (including mixing and concealing coverages).

Geez, I remember Newman use to run over 300 lb guards! Unfortunate, that was some wasted talent.

What, you mean ESR, the Entirely Sabres Network? I guess it's unfortunate for us out-of-towners that they're in such poor shape financially. Granted, I have a very biased perspective, but I would think that the out-of-town market for Bills news that they capture is far greater than local interest in say girls high school lacrosse and this is what they should try to concentrate on both in contentl & advertising.

YES Cordless & optical is the way to go. The one drawback is that they go through batteries like nobodies business. They unfortunately give little warning that they're about to die. The solution is to use 2 sets of rechargables & have the one set ready to replace the ones that will wear out in 2 or 3 weeks.

Well, 1st of all let's hope we're only like 1-5 instead of 2-10 when JPL is back. At which point, if our offensive production is still offensive, DB is on a short leash & yes, I'd like to see what JPL can do.

There's a 1st time for everything. What about when they 1st started to go w/ only 1 RB, opting instead for a 3rd WR or TE. Only using 3 DL. I could go on. The game evolves. Off the top of my head, I recall us using Jamie Mueller, a FB. Basically the same principle. For that matter, does it really matter where he lines up? I'm assuming the design is for him to be the escort. Last year we had Brown take like 90% of the returns. Presumably, we just used 2 'wings' back there. This year, we only have 1. It only makes sense that he's therefore responislbe for covering more ground. Of all the screw-ups we've seen it the 1st 2 games, having someone who appears to be doing a good job in position to makes plays certainly is well down the list of things that need improvement.

"Well, coincidentally, this is also the position I'm in when my alarm clock goes off in the morning"

Ditto. Call me paranoid, but I thought maybe someone was being clever & playing a trick by somehow posting a link to that page as the msg header.

I believe he is usually set up as the 2nd return guy. He's primarily back there due to his apparent excellent lead blocking capability. The idea is that (like last year w/ Brown) the primary return man gets the ball except for maybe 20% of the field. It just so happens that the were able to kick it accurately to that area (although on one of those kicks, McGee was in position to take it but Fletch took it anyway). For that matter, he seemed to do a pretty good job on his 2 returns.

You have ONE YARD TO GO for 7 points. What's your probability of making it? It better be > 50%, but w/ this offense, maybe not. Given the value of a TD relative to only a FG that early in the game AND that your expected return was greater (assume 100% FG success rate = 3 pts, 50% TD = 3.5 pts) it was the right decision. Further, consider that even if they do fail, they're gaining likely > 25 yards of field position in the exchange relative to scoring & kicking off. Just like punting instead of the FG last week was a correct call, this also is what sways this into being the most prudent decision.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, there are only two true knocks on RJ: 1) He's injury prone. Bledsoe is FAR better than him in this regard. However, depending our the starter quality of output & the next guy off the bench, this might not be so much of an advantage. 2) RJ has a 3 second mind in a 2 second world. Making quality decisions in 3 seconds is an asset in many professions; it works fine in chess & golf, but not football. Unfortunately, it seems that Bledsoe has a 4 second mind!

Interesting. I've always thought that it's best to play well at the end of the year, but you would think that at least starting strong would give you a better chance to at least MAKE the playoffs. I'll extrapolate those stats further. If 18 were 1-1 or 0-2, that means that 6 were 2-0. There should be on avg 8 teams that start off 2-0, so at least for the last 2 yrs, starting well is possibly actually NEGATIVELY correlated w/ making the playoffs.

Sorry for the snide remark, but to cure the problem, use Mozilla or NetScape (If nothing else, it'll say 'Mozilla encountered...'.) Seriously, if nothing else, it might prove diagnostic.

If I'n not mistaken, Mustangs didn't come out 'til mid 1964. Do you mean a '72? BTW, for 'coolest', I'd have to go w/ my very own '68 Charger. Have owned it for 21 years. As for 'exotic', I drove an Excaliber. A previous neighbor of mine was a car salesmen. The Excaliber was basically a (n expensive) kit car built on a (brand new) Camaro chassis. (This was about 1985). They had it at their dealership for promotional purposes. It was surprisingly fast.

From the view of replay(s), it didn't look like he did anything wrong, or at least not blatant. I wonder if the call was actually on MW (#68 vs #58 & right next to him) Although certainly not a mugging, it did look like MW had hold of a bit of jersey.

Actually, I would think that technically it would NOT count as an incomplete. (It definitely wouldn't be considered a complete.) It counts as an ATTEMPT. Your completion %age is based on # of completions, divided by # of attempts. So in the aforementioned Moorman example, your completion %age is still zero. (0/1)

A few years ago, she was visiting the Chefs training camp & she supposedly was making 55 yd FGs, Both LEFT & RIGHT Footed! That's pretty impressive.

Yes, we only had 3 DL, but I think on every play we were sending 4 or 5 rushers. Once they got down to the 20 or whereever, they were still executing their passes VERY quickly as if they were expecting the blitz. BTW, on the play that Clements got beat on, the 2 safeties were in the middle of the field noticably in front of the completion. It looked like Wire was on that side & Reece on the other. Had Clements been totally toasted, it would have went the distance.